Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/7582 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/7582 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: node system Category: bug reports Priority: normal Assigned to: killes@www.drop.org Reported by: killes@www.drop.org Updated by: Nick Nassar Status: patch (code needs review) On a much more serious note that my last comment, unless I'm missing something, you've introduced a subtle bug into this patch since I left it. A and B are both updating revision 5 of a node. A calls db_next_id() and gets a revision id of 6 B calls db_next_id() and gets a revision id of 7 B updates the node's revision to 7 B adds revision 7 to the revision table A updates the node's revision to 6 A adds revision 6 to the revision table Now, you have a situation where the current revision (6) isn't actually the last revision(7). For some uses, that's not a big deal, but in the case of wikis, which is what I originally hoped to use this patch for, it creates problems. Nick Nassar Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 16:25:27 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Currently all node revisions are stored in a serialized field in node.table and retrieved for _each_ page view although they are rarely needed. However, we have agreed that serializing data is bad and that we should try to keep the memory foot print pf Drupal small. Therefore I propose to create a separate revisions table which would be in principle identical to the node table, only that it could have several old copies of the same node. Extra data added by other modules could be added in a serialized field unless we find a better solution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 17:06:35 +0000 : jhriggs I too think the serialized approach is less than desirable, but here's an alternative. This would likely take some considerable rework in core and contrib, but the following is how we handle similar types of situations in our databases at work. It is more elegant that a separate table, and avoids the (almost exact) duplication of a table. Instead of separate tables, keep all revisions of nodes in the node table as follows: * add field: active (0/1 or Y/N) * add field: revision * every revision of a node is stored in the node table; however, only one revision can be active at any given time * nid can no longer be unique -- primary/unique key becomes (nid, active) * any time a node is loaded, updated (without revision), etc., the active version is used. Thoughts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 17:57:48 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org I am not opposed to your scheme, but I want to stress the following: * Duplicating a table's structure is not bad (IMHO) as long as the content is different. * having two tables will allow us to have a rather small node table. This is (maybe) a performance gain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 05 May 2004 18:37:29 +0000 : jhriggs I don't necessarily think that duplicating a table's structure is _bad_. It just seems to be wasteful and a pain to maintain. (Every change to the node table is made twice...easy to do, but also easy to miss perhaps.) As for performance, as long as nid and the active indicator are indexed, there shouldn't be any performance loss. Also, archiving an old version when making a new revision will be much simpler: just change the active indicator rather than copying an entire node to another table (and ensuring everything gets copied...again a potential maintainance issue). To be honest, I would just like to see the serialized data go away, regarless of what approach is taken. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:49:33 +0000 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_07-30-2004.pa... (10.47 KB) I'm interested in using Drupal for a large scale wiki-type project. In order to do this, I need revisions to be in their own table. Attached is a patch to do just that. Most of the changes are pretty self explanatory. Spreading out node data across two tables meant that I had to add database functions to do locking/transactions. Without this, race conditions in which the database becomes corrupted are possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:54:36 +0000 : Nick Nassar Oh yeah... The patch is a diff against Drupal CVS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:00:08 +0000 : Anonymous Gerhard speaking. Nick, thanks a lot for your nice patch! It saves me a great deal of labour. I looked through it and immediately liked it. You not only put the old revisions into a new table but also the current one. Do you have an estimate how much more expensive the additional join is? Besides a few minor coding style issues I found a major one: Just a few hours before you uploaded your patch JonBob's node access patch hit core. That means your patch won't apply anymore as all the queries you change have been changed. Can I bug you to update your patch? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:11:59 +0000 : Anonymous Also I think that your upgrade path loses existing revisions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 02:39:12 +0000 : drumm I think this is the proper way to do things. No columns are duplicated, there is no serialized data, and only the fields that are logically revised are stored. Nothing jumped out at me as a way to have my node modules be able to keep a table of revisions of additional fields. I'm guessing this could be done within the confines of _insert and _update. Assuming the upgrade path works and modules can extend it I give it a +1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:40:15 +0000 : Nick Nassar It figures that just as I finish a big patch, another patch comes along and breaks it. Oh well, it should be a pretty easy to fix. I'll work on it. Fixing the upgrade path to keep revisions should be fairly painless. I found another issue that needs to be fixed before this patch gets merged. There format of a node needs to be stored for each revision. Otherwise, for modules that store a format for the nodes, such as page and book, if you write one revision in PHP and the next in HTML, the PHP revision will be displayed as HTML. This is part of a larger issue of how node modules should store revisions of additional fields. I think each module that wants to do this should create another table with (nid, revid) as the primary key. Just as when they want to add fields to a node they create another table with nid as the primary key. As far as performance goes, for sites that make heavy use of revisions, an extra join on primary keys is going to be a lot faster than grabbing all of the revisions from that database everytime. We would need to run benchmarks to determine is the overall difference in speed is for an average site is a gain or a loss. I'm guessing it's very minor either way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:55:49 +0000 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_08-23-2004.pa... (10.92 KB) Here's an updated patch against CVS that puts revisions in their own table, provides an upgrade path, and fixes the format related bugs in the last patch. Hopefully, this can make it into CVS as soon as the freeze is over. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:10:39 +0000 : moshe weitzman Interesting patch ... drumm's question is still outstanding. how do modules store revisions of their fields? Are they expected to manage this on their own? Thats not how it works today. As an aside, i am seeing profile_ fields in my node.revisions column. One could argue that those need not be saved. They pertain to the node author, not to the node itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:14:39 +0000 : Nick Nassar Having modules be responsible for storing revisions of their own fields is a side-effect of storing revision data in tables. There's really no way around it. However, revisions generally don't make sense for node types that don't have PHP/HTML content, such as polls. I think it's going to be a pretty rare scenario for a new node type to want another field to change per-revision, so it's a pretty good trade-off. Storing fields that shouldn't be part of revisions, such as the profile_ fields, is a side-effect of storing revisions as serialized objects. Applying this patch will free up that wasted space. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:20:57 +0000 : Anonymous There should be a hook that let's the module choose whether it supports history. This way a module author can prevent the user from doing something that may break his module or just cause undefined behavior. If the module doesn't support history then don't let the user/admin choose to add history to nodes of that type. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:23:29 +0000 : Nick Nassar I agree, there should be an API change to make specifying support for revisions easier. In the interests of keeping patches small and keeping to one change per patch, I think the API change should be a separate issue. A sort of ad-hoc API to decide whether or not a module supports revisions by default already exists. Instead of having a hook, modules set the default value of the "Create new revision" field in the edit form. The admin can change this option in admin/node/configure/defaults. This patch doesn't change that. Revisions are broken for node types that have their own database structure, like polls, even when storing them as serialized objects. This patch doesn't change that, either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 26 Oct 2004 02:35:06 +0000 : moshe weitzman I'm guessing that someone is going to have to demonstrate that this patch performs as well as current drupal before it gets comitted. i think this patch is a few benchmarks from being comitted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:04:09 +0000 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.pa... (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:05:16 +0000 : Nick Nassar I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:05:26 +0000 : Nick Nassar Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004.pa... (11 KB) I ran some really unscientific benchmarks, and it looks like this patch has a negligible affect on performance. I used apache bench and the database from theregular.org, which doesn't contain any revisions (worst case scenario for this patch) and contains several hundred nodes. Both the patched and unpatched versions hovered between 2.36 and 2.38 requests per second. The command I used was: ab -n50 -C 'PHPSESSID=b01a9f92880ef215b0ed6f1314a5eba2' http://192.168.0.100/ An updated patch that should apply to CVS is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:05:30 +0000 : elias1884 please overthink the revision system default workflow as well. don't look at the revision system as an isolated system but as a part of the whole workflow system! if you combine revisions with the moderation queue the most logic default workflow would be like that: auth user creates node (revision #0) admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) => node publicly available auth user finds typo and changes node (revision #1, status = 0, moderation = 1) ------- what happens at that point at the moment is, that the node is not accessible anymore at all until the new revision is approved by admin. of course the new revision should not go online until reviewed and approved, this is absolutely correct, but there is no reason to not take the old revision offline, since it was already approved and should therefore be online until the new revision is approved. it is not practical if a node disappears only because the author corrected a typo. ------- admin approves the node (status = 1, moderation = 0) eventhough I first thought a plain boolean active field would not be capable of providing that functionality if finally came to the conclusion, that it can. The only thing to do is to not set that bit, when a new revision is created, but when it is approved (in case moderation is activated under default workflow). Every revision should have its own moderation, status and active field and on approval they are set like this (status=1, moderation=0, active=Y). When you wanna rollback to an old revision, you can chose between all revisions that already have the moderation bit set back to 0 again and the published to 1. There should be an extra permission for rollback! another concern that I have about the default workflow is, that users can't see the content, they have just created, when moderation is enabled. Eventhough, there is a big fat "submission accepted" presented after submissions, unexperienced users tend to question the information those stupid tincans give them, if they can't find their content afterwards. Many users are really lazy bastards and they don't even read the status messages. The best feedback about whether his story was submitted successfully or not of course is, if he can find the story somewhere on the site, maybe with a status message on top of it, mentioning, that the content is currently not publicly available since it has not been approved yet. there should be a my content section under my account, like somebody is trying to do with the workspace module I guess. so my suggestion is to make (status=0, moderation=1) still available for the creator under a my content section somewhere! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:21:18 +0000 : Nick Nassar I agree. The current workflow for moderation queues and revisions needs to change, but this patch isn't the place for it. The patch is already too big, and it only does the backend stuff. Instead of adding more to this patch and making it take even longer to get into core, would you mind creating a new issue for your UI suggestions, so the those changes can be added as a separate patch? Thanks, Nick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 11 Dec 2004 12:26:02 +0000 : Dries This patch is _much_ needed so I'd love to see someone revive it. In order for this patch to be accepted, the following needs to be done: * Update this patch to CVS HEAD. * Rename revid to vid. * Rename node_rev to node_revisions. * Rename node_rev.changed to node_revisions.timestamp. * Rename $rnode to $revision. * Fix the coding style to match Drupal's: proper spacing, single quotes where possible, proper variable names. * Benchmark this patch with a large database with enough revisions. I'd be happy to benchmark this on my local copy of the drupal.org database. * The book.log field should probably move to the node_revisions table. This can be done in a separate patch. * Investigate whether transactions are well-supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:25:40 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/Drupal-Improved_Revision_Schema_10-26-2004-re... (11.02 KB) I've worked a bit on the patch (coding style issues as mentioned by Dries). One thing I noticed is that the patch uses REPLACE. IIRC this needs to be chagned to "UPDATE, if fail INSERT" for pgsql compatibility. Nick, are you still interested in working on that patch? I'd like to know how it works on your site and work on getting it into core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:33:08 +0000 : Dries Gerhard: your patch does not apply. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:10:12 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Yes, I know, that was the same version as I mailed to you earlier. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:02:06 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions.patch (52.96 KB) Ok, upüdated the patch to cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:58:36 +0000 : Dries Some more comments: * db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() do not belong in database.inc, but in database.mysql.inc and database.pgsql.inc respectively. * The node module calls node_revisionsision_list() which is not defined. (Fxed that on my local copy.) * Do db_begin_transaction() and db_end_transaction() deprecate Jeremy's table locking patch? * The upgrade path assigns the wrong user ID to each revision. * The upgrade path assigns the wrong date to each revision (that or a node's revision page shows the wrong usernames/dates). * The coding style needs a bit of work, but we can worry about that later. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:34:44 +0000 : Nick Nassar If you need any help getting those things fixed, just let me know. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:50:30 +0000 : Nick Nassar How this relates to Jeremy's node locking patch: There was lots of discussion, and node locking was decided against because from an end user point of view you never want a node to be locked. He's now advocating for a much simpler patch that warns users if their changes will overwrite someone elses. That patch still has a race condition, which might be fixed using db_begin_transaction(). http://drupal.org/node/6025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:26:19 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_0.patch (55.96 KB) Here is an updated patch that tries to address Dries concerns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:32:50 +0000 : Dries Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions-bug.png (76.06 KB) It didn't fix the aforementioned bugs. See attached screenshot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:15:01 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_1.patch (51.77 KB) Ok, here is a new version. Dries and myself worked hart at it, so please have a look. what is still missing - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:43:49 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_2.patch (49.49 KB) Here is an updated patch. We discussed to keep the current title in node module and also in the revisiosn table. This is content duplication but will save many joins as many queries only need the title of a node. Discussion is welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:33:32 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_3.patch (29.93 KB) I've implemented the aforementioned solution. This makes the patch much smaller. The patch now also removes taxonomy_node_has_term() which wasn't used anywhere. I'd really apprciate if some people could test drive the patch. It will be another huge improvement for 4.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:05:54 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_4.patch (30 KB) Another revision. Steven didn't like my literal $node->vid in queries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:10:50 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org - database upgrades for the core modules with an own table - contrib modules need an upgrade too. - do we need nid and vid in both the node and the node_revisions table? - the amount of sql queries means a good stress testing for large databases. These issues are still open, btw. Especially the first one needs to be tackled. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:11:59 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_5.patch (51.13 KB) Here is a patch that has the database tables updated for forum, book, and page module. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:55:59 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_6.patch (49.18 KB) Yet another update to keep it working with head. The patch now also removes the table definitons for the page table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:57:40 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_7.patch (55.69 KB) Sorry, that was the old version, this is the right one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:55:03 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_8.patch (55.71 KB) Updated once more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:52:08 +0000 : Dries Anyone to help review/test this? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:22:36 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_9.patch (49.29 KB) Updated again, the update functions occurred twice. Thanks Bart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:27:05 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Don't know if the db I am using is corrupted or what. I still do have some didficulties. The latest patch is attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 00:27:49 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_10.patch (49.67 KB) I am probably slowly going mad ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:54:58 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_11.patch (48.95 KB) The update issue still needs investigating. This patch is updated for cvs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:20:51 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_12.patch (49.83 KB) Ok, here is a new version. I've solved my troubles with book.module. There are still some issues with forum module. Possibly due to inconsistent database. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:05 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_13.patch (49.83 KB) Turns out the drupal.org database had indeed some quirks. Please run this query in your oldest db and tell me the result: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; If you get a non-zero result we might need to add another security update. The patch could use still more testing, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:16:54 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_14.patch (49 KB) Ok, we are getting somewhere. At a first glance the update is working. There is a problem remaining: the revisions tab will be shown whether the node has revisions or not. Not sure we can/need to fix this. People with a drupal.org account can log in at http://killes.drupaldevs.org/revision/ and poke around. Your permissions will be the same as on drupal.org. Feel free to vreak everything but don't forget to file complaints here. (Note: this is only a pruned version of the drupal.org database with all project nodes and nodes with nids > 7000 dropped). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:19:14 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_15.patch (52.39 KB) There was some error in node_save and also the patches to the database.inc files got lost... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:07:27 +0000 : robertDouglass Submitting book pages doesn't work on your test site. It puts the entire content of the preview inside the body textarea. I wrote a sentence in the body and the log, and pressing preview put several lines of HTML containing both sentences in the body textarea on the preview page, plus the book page wouldn't submit. -R ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:50:59 +0000 : Junyor 0 results here. I started using Drupal with version 4.4, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 03 Feb 2005 23:56:18 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org @Junyor: Thanks, that's a good sign. Maybe somebody else has an older db to try. @robertDouglass: The first effect you describe is due to drupaldevs running on PHP 5. I am unsure why the second thing does not work. In node_save() the node object has a nid although there is none in the form. Very strange. I've enabled display of db queries on the testsite. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:17:55 +0000 : dmjossel No results here on the query: select nid,type from node where type like '%/%'; On a database that was put in place prior to Drupal 4 and is now running on 4.5.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:44:23 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org @dmjossel: thanks. @all. The strange problem I reported was apparently php 5 related. After applying Steven's php 5 patch it went away. One error is remaining: If I create a new forum topic it will be shown as part of the book on preview. Hmm, that was due to a db that got corrupted during testing so that is fixed too. Please poke around at the test site and look if you find more errors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:16:22 +0000 : Steven By the way, I just remembered that Drupal.org has some blogs lingering on in the database even though blog.module is not enabled. Perhaps this is causing troubles? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Feb 2005 11:22:59 +0000 : Anonymous I can't see why it would. Drupal.org will need extra updates for images and project nodes because those have their own tables. GK. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:49:55 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_16.patch (52.49 KB) Updated to apply to cvs again. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:15:40 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_17.patch (49.64 KB) Updated again. All we need is a patch to upload module and an upgrade path for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 04 Mar 2005 04:22:58 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_18.patch (52.31 KB) Updated once more. Moved log field from book to node_revisions table as discussed in Antwerp. upload module still missing. We need to decide under which circumstances the log field should be displayed. Should that be added to the workflow? Should it depend on the revisions setting? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:27:03 +0000 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_20.patch (75.52 KB) Ok, here it is: Yet another revision of this grrrrreat patch. Changes from previous versions: - supports versioning for uploaded files. A problem is that if you delete a file, it will be gone for all revisions. - the log field is now in the node_revsions table, but each module has to decide whether to show it or not. I've implemented it for the page and the book type odes. Also, the field can be edited when adding non-book nodes to the book. The log is displayed on the revisions page and if a node is moderated. - the revisions are moved to an old_revisions table to a) get the node table smaller and b) still leave the mavailable for contrib modules that want to retreive old version data. The patch has been applied to killes.drupaldevs.org/revision where it can be tested by anybody (especially people who have "site admin" rights on drupal.org). The database is from drupal.org and you should b able to log in with your pass or simply mail yourself a new one. Gerhard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:51:56 +0000 : Anonymous Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_21.patch (59.42 KB) BTW, I marked this a bug because atm the revisions field can grow quite big. Neil has reported problems from some users who were not able to load some nodes due to to many large revisions. Also, som unrelated stuff crept into the patch. New version attached. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:56:01 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_22.patch (60.29 KB) Ok, I think I got it. Changes to last version: - uploads are no properly versioned. Missing are still pgsql checks and updates. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:58:41 +0000 : Anonymous Was able to get http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_21.patch to work with drupal-cvs.tar.gz (10 March 2005) by: - includes/database.mysql.inc: Commenting out duplicates for functions function db_begin_transaction and function db_commit_transaction - modules: node.module: Removing "'title' => $node->title," from $node_table_values variable declaration and removing "'title' => "'%s'"," from "$node_table_types" variable declaration. Happy to submit a patch if requested. I'll watch this thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:59:45 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org The duplicate function has been removed in rev 22 of this patch. Why do you think the changes in node_save are needed? Titles are saved in both tables for performance reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:12:21 +0000 : jlerner Hi - I posted comment #62. The changes to node_save appear to be needed because recent patches (both 21 and 22) remove the field 'title' from table 'node'. So without the changes to node_save, node.module is broken and generates errors. Joshua ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:29:42 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_23.patch (61.17 KB) Thanks, Joshua, for catching this. node:title is there to stay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:29:23 +0000 : moshe weitzman since HEAD is open again, perhaps it is a good time to revisit this patch. once this is committed, lets address - http://drupal.org/node/11071 "node_validate does not respect group editing" ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:43:42 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_24.patch (60.39 KB) Updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:16:32 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_24_0.patch (60.39 KB) Updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:19:42 +0000 : Dries I'll commit this patch later this week! If you haven't checked this patch already, I urge you to test/check it out because it will have significant impact on existing code and modules! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:21:33 +0000 : Dries Also, what do people think about the n.title being duplicated? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:26:58 +0000 : chx I won't lose any sleep because of duplicated titles... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:35:58 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Let me explain why I have chosen to duplicate the title (and also the uid): If you look at all the queries in Drupal, you will find that most of them only need the title and th uid of a node. That is, by duplicating it, we save expensive joins on the node_revisions table. Due to this fact, this patch is actually a performance improvement. A note about updating contrib module: Strictly speaking they wouldn't need to be updated. They only need to if their authors decide that their info should be available for revisioning. The upgrade path for forum.module in my update.inc patch (+ the forum patch) should show you what needs to be done. I will write a note for the update page once the patch hits core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_25.patch (60.38 KB) Updated to cvs. Dries: Based on some remarks in #drupal this is the last update I am going to do. Apply it or won't fix it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:42:39 +0000 : Jeremy@kerneltrap.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_25.patch.patch (528 bytes) That's a big patch. I've only started looking through it. I noticed one little typo, affecting updates. A patch to your last patch is attached. I'm running with the revision patch on my dev server now happily. I like the concept. What happens if you click 'stop' on your browser in the middle of a MySQL "transaction"? I assume that kills the connection to MySQL, and the lock is freed? But this then leaves changes only partially applied? What exactly does locking/unlocking the tables buy us in MySQL? I don't see anywhere that we detect if an apply fails part way through, and thus roll back...? What am I missing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:11:28 +0000 : Dries Jeremy: many of us are worried about the performance ramifications this patch introduces. Early experiments showed a small performance improvement (while a performance regression might be expected). More performance reports from large sites like kerneltrap.org will certainly help this patch. Mind to do a quick performance comparision and to report back with some numbers? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:38:02 +0000 : Jeremy@kerneltrap.org Dries: I'm not running HEAD on kerneltrap, so this really isn't a possibility. Furthermore, until I understand why we're locking tables, I don't like it. The idea of revisions in their own tables is great. The idea of locking tables to get (without any obvious benefit) there really worries me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:16:01 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org @Jeremy: Thanks for looking at the patch! Also for catching the typo. :) Did you try to upgrade your database? If yes, how did it go? One of Dries' concerns is the complexity of the upgrade. How many nodes and revisions did the db have? About database locking: This part of the patch was created by Nick and I simply continued to use it. Maybe the code should rather be: if(db_begin_transaction(array('{node}', '{node_revisions}', '{watchdog}', '{sessions}', '{files}'))) { db_query($node_query, $node_table_values); db_query($revisions_query, $revisions_table_values); db_commit_transaction(); ... } The idea is probably to avoid two updates at the same time. I don't think the locking helps if you abort the script at an inconvenient time. Rollbacks aren't implemented in all mysql versions. We could omit the db locking if deemed inappropriate. Maybe Nick can explain his ideas behind this. @Dries: I wonder who the "many of us" are. They certainly haven't spoken to me. Moshe had some reservations about the upgrade path and project module, but the time that project module abused revisions to store issue updates was long ago and his reservations were resolved. Nobody else (besides you of course and now Jeremy) has voiced reservations in a way that was audible to me. If you grep through the patch you will notice that there are only four queries which have a join on the node_revisions table. Two of them are in node_load and in the other cases the join replaced a join on the node table. The two queries in node_load are the only ones that have both a join on the node and the revisions query. Thus, loading of individual nodes might become somewhat slower. All other queries will be faster since the node table is now much smaller. Also, node loading does not have to be slower, it depends on your node table. If you had a lot of revisions and thus a large table, then the new scheme will make your queries actually faster since we do not load the revisions on each and every node load anymore. If you didn't have many revisions your node_load migth be somewhat slower. WRT to the update script Karoly pointed out that we could use multiple insert queries instead one query per revision. This would probably make the update somewhat faster. I am willing to work on this iff you declare that you will commit the patch afterwards. I'd need to know if this will work on pgsql and on all supported mysql versions before I work on it. About locking: Database locking is dog slow, at least on mysql. I was using locks in an earlier version of the upgrade script but had to remove it for (serious!) performance reasons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 15:07:34 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_26.patch (46.45 KB) Ok, another update, cause I need it myself. I've left out the transaction stuff for now. It is in principle unrelated to this patch and should be discussed elsewhere. This also makes the patch smaller and easier to review (hint, hint). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 20:32:09 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org The patch contained the update functions twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 20:32:26 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_27.patch (39.05 KB) The patch contained the update functions twice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:23:06 +0000 : Dries Got one error during the upgrade path: ALTER TABLE {book} ADD PRIMARY KEY vid (vid) FAILED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:26:19 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org This had happend to me as well, when I tested this patch. The reason is that for some reason the vid is not unique. Most likely there are some entries with vid = 0 in there. Can you check which node types those have? it always was an error in the test database. See: http://drupal.org/node/7582#comment-20678 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:27:06 +0000 : Dries Actually, I got 2850 errors during the upgrade. Some of these: sprintf() [function.sprintf]: Too few arguments in drupal-cvs/includes/database.inc on line 154. Some of these: Query was empty query: in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. And this: Unknown table 'n' in field list query: SELECT n.nid, n.vid FROM node INNER JOIN files f ON n.nid = f.nid in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:29:19 +0000 : Dries Or this: user error: Unknown column 'log' in 'field list' query: SELECT parent, weight, log FROM book WHERE nid = 1 in drupal-cvs/includes/database.mysql.inc on line 66 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 09 May 2005 21:52:12 +0000 : Dries The time required to generate my main page went from 902 ms (before upgrade) to 2139 ms (after upgrade). The time required to generate a forum listing (?q=forum/x) went from 1872 ms (before upgrade) to 2874 ms (after upgrade). Maybe this is because my database is not consistent as the result of the upgrade errors (yet I don't see any errors on the pages I benchmarked). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 10 May 2005 00:24:38 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_28.patch (53.47 KB) Ok, let me get to this from the bottom to the top: - my test runs indicated a different development wrt timing. If I had gotten your results, I had stopped working on this long ago. So your results are wrong for some reason. - user error: Unknown column 'log' in 'field list' Wasn't my day, the book patch got lost. It is contained now. First -R the old patch, then apply this one. - Unknown table 'n' in field list query: Walkah found this, but I forgot to fix it. Fixed now. - I've no idea where the other queries come from. I am hoping that either your test db is borken or they are follow ups from the other ones. If you let me have your test db, I'll try some debugging. Thanks for wasting your time, too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 10 May 2005 05:07:31 +0000 : Dries I double-checked and the numbers don't seem to lie. I'll test some more after work on another machine to make sure it is not platform-specific. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 11 May 2005 03:32:47 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_29.patch (54.83 KB) Ok, here I am again. What I did: 1) Ask Dries to let me have drupal.org database 2) get 400MB of SQL inserts... 3) take 23 minutes to import said data 4) Remove all image and project nodes (don't want to install their modules), 11765 nodes left 5) back up data 6) take tests on non-cached /node page (as anonymous user). ab results: -c 1 -n 25: Requests per second: 1.29 [#/sec] (mean) Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Total: 663 775 179.7 689 1264 7) Do the same for the tracker page: Requests per second: 0.83 [#/sec] (mean) Total: 1182 1199 7.4 1199 1217 8) Apply my patch (rev. 28). 9) run db update and hold breath 10) update times out... 11) play back backup from 5) 12) wait 13) getting annoyed and removing cache, watchdog, and accesslog before playing in backup. 14) wait again. Understand why Dries doesn't try this patch often. Maybe a smaller DB would do for testing? 15) wait more. get really annoyed. 16) Set time limit to 18000 in update.php 17) try again 18) fails again before the second update is completed. 19) curse. 20) delete search stuff from db. Ooops, sooo much smaller... 21) import again, below 2 minutes... 22) rewrite to use extended insert. Found a bug. 23) still does not complete. Mysql logging to the rescue! 24) tid = 0? Not good. 25) Well, the update works fine till node 10834. 5595 nodes done, 6136 to go. 26) Writing shell based update script. Discovery: 24MB aren't enough. Hopefully 64 are. Nope. extended inserts for revisions are apparently not the brightest idea: Huge memory consumption. Hmm, no, all updates got through. Selecting the revisions to put them into old_revisions table screwed it. Learned about CREATE TABLE old_revisions SELECT syntax. Yay! finally. 24 MB are just not enough the update.php script seems to still break. 27) Benchmarks! /node Requests per second: 1.54 [#/sec] (mean) Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Total: 632 649 40.5 636 791 /tracker Requests per second: 0.86 [#/sec] (mean) Total: 1119 1165 65.8 1160 1461 Ok: So we get an improvement for many node_loads, but none for simple selects from node. More tests can be done. 28) roll new patch Ain't Drupal fun? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 18 May 2005 13:38:05 +0000 : Dries I did another round of tests on _another_ machine and it is not looking good: Before upgrade After upgrade ?q= (main page) 218 ms/request 340 ms/request ?q=forum (forum overview) 754 ms/request 1520 ms/request ?q=about (book page) 375 ms/request 5400 ms/request The upgrade process itself gave me a number of 'query was empty' and 'sprintf(): too few arguments' reports. Everything seems to work fine though. Looking at the ?q=about page, I see that the following query is executed twice _and_ that each time, it take more than 2 seconds to complete: SELECT n.nid, n.title, b.parent, b.weight FROM node n INNER JOIN book b ON n.vid = b.vid WHERE n.status = 1 AND n.moderate = 0 ORDER BY b.weight, n.title; --8 SHOW INDEX FROM book; +-------+------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ | Table | Non_unique | Key_name | Seq_in_index | Column_name | Collation | Cardinality | Sub_part | Packed | Null | Index_type | Comment | +-------+------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ | book | 1 | book_parent | 1 | parent | A | 92 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | | book | 1 | nid | 1 | nid | A | 369 | NULL | NULL | | BTREE | | +-------+------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+-----------+-------------+----------+--------+------+------------+---------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) The book module does not appear to have a primary key? Sounds like a bad idea so I added one: mysql> ALTER TABLE book ADD PRIMARY KEY nid (nid); Query OK, 369 rows affected (0.02 sec) Records: 369 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 Next, I wanted to make the vid column a unique key in all node tables: mysql> ALTER TABLE node ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); Query OK, 20392 rows affected (0.81 sec) Records: 20392 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 mysql> ALTER TABLE book ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); ERROR 1062: Duplicate entry '0' for key 2 mysql> ALTER TABLE forum ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); Query OK, 10806 rows affected (0.10 sec) Records: 10806 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 As you can see, it fails for the book table which makes me believe there is some inconsistent data ... I set out to fix that: mysql> SELECT nid, COUNT(nid) AS vids FROM book GROUP BY vid HAVING vids > 1; +-----+------+ | nid | vids | +-----+------+ | 871 | 2 | +-----+------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec) mysql> SELECT title FROM node WHERE nid = 871; Empty set (0.00 sec) mysql> DELETE FROM book WHERE nid = 871; Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec) mysql> ALTER TABLE book ADD UNIQUE vid (vid); Query OK, 368 rows affected (0.01 sec) Records: 368 Duplicates: 0 Warnings: 0 Looks like everything is well now. Ran some new benchmarks: Before upgrade After upgrade With indices ?q= (main page) 218 ms/request 340 ms/request 336 ms/request ?q=forum (forum overview) 754 ms/request 1520 ms/request 1531 ms/request ?q=about (book page) 375 ms/request 5400 ms/request 475 ms/request Unfortunately, we're still slower than the original code. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 18 May 2005 21:53:31 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Dries, thanks for testing it again. I do think the broken queries you observer have something to do with the bad performance after the update. Please log the queries any I will have a look at them. I've never seen any such queries. My update script also tries to create the appropriate indices, but it will of course fail if the database contains cruft. the indices for the forum are probably missing, too. I am still convinced that the patch is core worthy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 May 2005 04:36:09 +0000 : Dries It wouldn't hurt if more people would benchmark this patch. The patch's current performance worries me. Did you check your watchdog messages after upgrading the drupal.org database? Depending on your settings, errors might only be shown in the watchdog. I'll look into the remaining glitches as time permits. Thanks for your persistence in keeping this patch up-to-date. :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 19 May 2005 11:59:22 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Dries: Can you please let me have your updated database? I want to have a look at it and try my own benchmarks with it. And yes, if I did learn something on this project is how to be persistant. ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:25:34 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Here is an idea that occurred to me: The problem with the upgrade process is that keeping the existing revisions requires a lot of work to do. This generates a huge amount of sql queries for a large database and also requires a huge amount of memory. My suggestions is to let update.php only handle the basic upgrade, ie without old revisions. An additional module could be created that would implement a cron based approach to upgrading old revisions one node at a time. it could expose a hook to let contrib modules do their own upgrades. Dries, what do you think? (I am writing "Dries" because he seems to be the only one who is interested in getting this into core...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:25:11 +0000 : Junyor Killes: I'm also interested in seeing this hit core. What about adding something to legacy.module to do it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:14:54 +0000 : chx This is a sensible approach. Maybe this is the _only_ sensible approach. I have a little problem though: while the conversion is running somehow both revision handlers should be available. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:16:21 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org hehe, one only has to whine and bug enough and one gets some feedback. ;) @junyor: legacy.module would be a good place. my current idea is to auto-enable it in update.php and then disable it again in legacy_cron after all nodes are updated.. ;) @chx: When somebody wants to look at revisions of a node that node could be auto-updated. The only problem are contrib modules: they's need to have some hook in order to update their own data. When somebody looks at the revisions of a node than cannot be updated because the contrib module in question has no such hook, we can optionally let the user discard old revisions I guess. Dries, what do you think? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:48:51 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_30.patch (53.13 KB) Sooooo; I've updated this patch once again. Dries didn't like my idea of legacy updates so we will have an option to discard old revisions in case the update should prove difficult. Always keep a backup. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:31:12 +0000 : Bèr Kessels can we please accept and commit this patch? We can iron out any issues later. This patch is just far too big and complex to be perfect-at-once. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:22:50 +0000 : Dries @Ber: no, we can't commit this patch blindly. Data loss is a much bigger problem than a syntax error or other code glitch. We can break Drupal but we can't break their data. I've spent quite a bit of time testing the previous version of this patch and noticed significant performance degradation. Tell me, Ber, why can't you test this patch first? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:40:37 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I was not referring to not testing it. If it is just the upgrade path that proves to be cumbersome, then why can we not fix it afterwards, I.e. when everyone has had a good chance to look at it. Testing such a huge patch requires a lot of work. something no-one just does in his spare hours. We had discussions before to deal in a slightly different way with big changes; to commit them quicker and to leave the ironing out of any left overs for the community. I hooked into that discussion here. For two reasons. One is that Gerhard has spent numerous hours on maintaining this patch. The other one is that the community can be of help with ironing out issues in such a large change, much better than that Gerhard can do on his own. And yes, dataloss is very bad, but no-one should loose data, when he/she followed the instructions (backing up)... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:00:38 +0000 : Dries Ber: applying this patch takes 15 seconds. Whether I apply this patch for you, or whether you apply it yourself, it will hardly reduce the 'testing cost'. The problem is that data loss can be subtle; it might go unnoticed for a couple days. Make no mistake, I'd like to see this patch committed ASAP, but it warrants some testing. Let's test/benchmark it and commit it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:55:03 +0000 : drumm The upgrade script already takes a long time to execute and does not provide feedback to the user about how it is doing. I plan on making the upgrade script able to spread the updates across multiple page views and give user feedback showing that progress is being made. This will hopefully make the speed of this update a moot point. I am working on this for my dayjob, CivicSpace, so it should get done "real soon now", but it should be expected to take awhile (smallish number of weeks). Please make comprimises if necessary. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:57 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_31.patch (48.78 KB) @drumm: the timeout isn't usually the problem. Memory consumption is. I'll look into doing the updates in chunks of 1000 nodes or so. Clousseau found a bug in the patch, updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 28 Jul 2005 18:28:08 +0000 : moshe weitzman Even if the upgrade issues are resolved, we have to figure out why this patch is slowing down drupal (according to benchmarks posted here). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:51:45 +0000 : Dries We can't proceed without some additional benchmarking. I already benchmarked it on two machines (see comments above), and I'll benchmark it again after August 10. The performance impact of this patch worries me so if two other people could test and benchmark this patch extensively, that would come a long way. August 10 is close to the code freeze so some help is necessary. If Gerhard/killes reviewed/tested one of your patches, it is time to return the favor ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:40:31 +0000 : Jose A Reyero After looking at the patch I'm not really surprised this slows down everything. I thought that the reason why we wanted revisions in their own table was in the first place to have a simpler -and faster- node table. But this patch: - Adds fields and complexity not only to the node table but also to all the main tables for data - Needs additional joins just to retrieve single nodes (which is done many times for a typical main page) - Does away with encapsulation of the revision functionality requiring other modules to handle revissions related data. So please, please, please: - Make revisions table only needed when actually using revisions - Keep that old nice thing of hiding revisions system from other modules - And what's so bad with serializing data anyway? I agree that usually there are better ways to store data. But this is one of the cases where serialization does make sense. Not the current huge serialized field, but only a new table with one serialized node per row. - In general, do it much simpler. This is way too complex and it removes more functionality than it adds. In just four words: keep it simple, please. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:25:26 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/revisions_32.patch (51.27 KB) Patch updated (v31 was buggy, and there was an update to updates.inc). I've had a discussion with Jose and he will maybe do some testing over the weekend. John is also doing some testing as we speak. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:06:59 +0000 : Nick Nassar It has been exactly one year since I first submitted this patch. You know what that means: *old patch party in IRC!* Virtual beers on me! w00t! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sat, 30 Jul 2005 16:08:33 +0000 : Jose A Reyero Hi again. I had a talk with killes -I have to say he enlightned me about this- and also did some testing. Sorry but I dont have a good set up to provide benchmarks. Here are my conclusions -and also some explanation for the varied results abt performance: - This is faster for simple node listings - This is slower for full node/load ....thus the performance increase/decrease for a given page should depend on the relation between the number of simple node listings (usually blocks) and the number of nodes displayed in the main page. I've also experienced some trouble with attachments -not re-created when creating a new revision- and book relations, same. I'm not sure I like this new "feature" of creating a new revision every time you rollback an old one -in Drupal 4.6 this seems not to happen. Besides these details, I think this patch is good enough -and quite a powerful approach actually- though I still feel it's bit too complex when simply dealing with nodes -without revisions-, which is what we do most of the time, and complexity will be even higher with contrib modules using still more tables, not to mention flexinode -versioning info will have to be scattered everywhere in the db. So this is not a +1 nor -1. On one side I think this is powerful. On the other side I feel this is too complex and really, it's more than I need. I would be happy with a 'revision' table having: nid, vid, data(serialized), that you can forget about when not using revisions.